City Council leader calls for no changes to rules during final days of tenure.

The New York City Council’s Rules Committee is set to convene a hearing today to discuss a proposed overhaul of the Council’s rules, described as the most extensive revision since 2014. As the clock ticks down to 100 days before Speaker Adrienne Adams, Rules Committee Chair Keith Powers, and other term-limited members conclude their tenures, there are growing calls to postpone the deliberations until the new Council, complete with its incoming speaker and Rules chair, assumes office in the upcoming year.

The last significant reform of the Council’s regulations occurred in May 2014, following extensive public dialogue sparked by the 2013 elections. At that time, newly elected Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and then-Chair of the Rules Committee Brad Lander engaged in months of negotiation concerning the legislative body’s functioning. Their collaborative approach was essential for an issue of such significance, illustrating the need for thoughtful scrutiny and community engagement in legislative processes.

Speaker Adams, who joined the Council in 2017 and began her term in leadership in 2020, has faced scrutiny for her decision to rush these procedural changes. The proposed amendments, which surfaced just four days before the hearing, encompass a comprehensive 44-page resolution along with a 141-page report. These documents are slated for a vote on the Council’s agenda this Thursday, a timeline that critics argue is too abrupt and lacks sufficient transparency or public input.

With Adams nearing the end of her term, the question arises: why push for these changes now? A reflective approach suggests that allowing the subsequent Council and its leadership to deliberate and shape the rules is in alignment with democratic principles. It is worth noting that the unelected staff members advocating for this expedited process do not carry the same accountability as elected officials.

This incident also echoes recent controversies, such as attempts by the Council leadership to eliminate key housing-related questions from the general election ballot, a move that was ultimately halted by gubernatorial intervention. These actions raise serious concerns about the administration’s commitment to transparency and collaboration.

Rather than hastily adopting new rules, a more constructive use of the Council’s remaining time could focus on enhancing governmental transparency. One positive initiative is a proposed bill aimed at improving the management of Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests. This legislation would empower the Department of Records and Information Services to establish a dedicated website for tracking and publicizing responses to FOIL requests across city agencies.

Such an initiative would greatly benefit the public by providing insight into how various agencies, from the Department of Sanitation to the NYPD, process these requests. Improved access to information would represent a meaningful legacy for Adams as she concludes her time in office.

In conclusion, it is advisable to set aside the proposed Council rules changes and allow the incoming Council and speaker to address these matters in a manner that reflects their goals and the expectations of constituents. This transition provides an opportunity for the new leadership to establish rules that better fit their vision for governance, just as Adams was afforded when she began her term in leadership four years ago.